DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Di Park et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0232481) in view of Manolakos et al (US Pat. No. 2021/0050888).
Regarding claim 1, Park et al discloses a first node (paragraph 148 [UE]) for wireless communications, comprising: a first receiver, receiving a first RS (see at least paragraph 148 discloses base station configures UE with one or more RSs; also see paragraph 242); determining first reference quality; receiving a second RS (see at least paragraph 148 discloses base station configures UE with one or more RSs; also see paragraph 242), where the second RS being linked with the first RS (see at least paragraph 240); and a first transmitter, transmitting a first message, the first message depending on a comparison between received quality of the second RS and the first reference quality (see at least paragraph 148 discloses UE with provides the CSI report to the base station).
Park et al specifically does not disclose where the first reference quality depending on non-codebook precoding information and wherein both the first reference quality and the non-codebook precoding information depend on a measurement for the first RS.
However, Manolakos et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches where the first reference quality depending on non-codebook precoding information and wherein both the first reference quality and the non-codebook precoding information depend on a measurement for the first RS (see at least paragraph 68 discloses non-codebook baes RS resource set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Manolakos et al into the system of Park et al for purpose of measure each of the RS resources; feedback report provides information associated with channel quality.
Regarding claim 2, Park et al discloses the first receiver, receiving a second message; wherein the second message is used to determine at least one of the following: a multi-antenna transmission of the second RS is codebook-based; the second message is used to indicate a first precoding matrix, the first precoding matrix is codebook-based, and the first precoding matrix is used for the multi-antenna transmission of the second RS; the second RS is linked with the first RS (see at least paragraph 152).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al discloses as a response to a first condition being satisfied, the first message is triggered; wherein the first condition depends on the comparison between the received quality of the second RS and the first reference quality (see at least paragraph 148 discloses UE with provides the CSI report to the base station).
Regarding claim 4, Manolakos et al discloses the first transmitter, transmitting the non-codebook precoding information (see at least paragraph 68). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Park et al discloses the generation of the first reference quality is based on: a wireless transmission corresponding to the first reference quality is adjusted for a first offset compared to transmit power of the first RS; the first offset is linked with the second RS (see at least paragraph 165).
Regarding claim 6, Park et al discloses the first reference quality depends on at least one of time-domain resources occupied by the second RS or frequency-domain resources occupied by the second RS (see at least paragraph 149).
Regarding claim 7, Park et al discloses a calculation of the first reference quality is conditional on a number of antenna port(s) of the second RS (see at least paragraph 240).
Regarding claim 8, Park et al discloses a second node (paragraph 148 [base station]) for wireless communications, comprising: a second transmitter, transmitting a first RS (see at least paragraph 148 discloses base station configures UE with one or more RSs; also see paragraph 242); transmitting a second RS (see at least paragraph 148 discloses base station configures UE with one or more RSs; also see paragraph 242), where the second RS being linked with the first RS (see at least paragraph 240); and a second receiver, receiving a first message, the first message depending on a comparison between received quality of the second RS and first reference quality (see at least paragraph 148 discloses UE with provides the CSI report to the base station).
Park et al specifically does not disclose where the first reference quality depending on non-codebook precoding information and wherein both the first reference quality and the non-codebook precoding information depend on a measurement for the first RS.
However, Manolakos et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches where the first reference quality depending on non-codebook precoding information and wherein both the first reference quality and the non-codebook precoding information depend on a measurement for the first RS (see at least paragraph 68 discloses non-codebook baes RS resource set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Manolakos et al into the system of Park et al for purpose of measure each of the RS resources; feedback report provides information associated with channel quality.
Regarding claims 9-13, see above rejection of claims 2-6.
Regarding claim 14, Park et al discloses a method in a first node (paragraph 148 [UE]) for wireless communications, comprising: receiving a first RS (see at least paragraph 148 discloses base station configures UE with one or more RSs; also see paragraph 242); determining first reference quality; receiving a second RS (see at least paragraph 148 discloses base station configures UE with one or more RSs; also see paragraph 242), where the second RS being linked with the first RS (see at least paragraph 240); and transmitting a first message, the first message depending on a comparison between received quality of the second RS and the first reference quality (see at least paragraph 148 discloses UE with provides the CSI report to the base station).
Park et al specifically does not disclose where the first reference quality depending on non-codebook precoding information and wherein both the first reference quality and the non-codebook precoding information depend on a measurement for the first RS.
However, Manolakos et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches where the first reference quality depending on non-codebook precoding information and wherein both the first reference quality and the non-codebook precoding information depend on a measurement for the first RS (see at least paragraph 68 discloses non-codebook baes RS resource set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Manolakos et al into the system of Park et al for purpose of measure each of the RS resources; feedback report provides information associated with channel quality.
Regarding claims 15-20, see above rejection of claims 2-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Lee et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0400677) directed toward channel measurement resource configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LITON MIAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights